Outlawing gay marriage isn't enough for the Texas GOP. They'd go so far as to make it explicitly illegal, AND make it illegal for someone to marry two gay people. They want to re-criminalize anal sex, and amongst other things that basically take away any rights that might make a gay person equal to a straight person:

Whole platform:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf&pli=1

Interesting bits:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/20/877709/-Midday-Open-Thread

Quote :

"Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

Quote :

"Marriage Licenses – We support legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for such."

Quote :

"Family and Defense of Marriage – We support the definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and we oppose the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President and Congress to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of marriage. We are resolute that Congress exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married."

Quote :

"Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

Basically, if the Texas GOP could outright make being gay illegal, they'd go there.

6/26/2010 5:54:12 PM

Holy dog shit. Texas? Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Cowboy. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down. Do you suck dicks?

6/26/2010 5:57:22 PM

Yes, I'm gay, and yes, I live in Texas.

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 5:58 PM. Reason : any other questions?]

6/26/2010 5:58:25 PM

Was I incorrectly assuming that " " and -Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, Full Metal Jacket were understood?

6/26/2010 6:07:44 PM

Full Metal Jacket is a must-see movie.

But yeah, it's mindblowing how stupid and bigoted these people are. I dunno what else there is to say. With the public opinion becoming more and more tolerant of gays, they're only hurting themselves.

6/26/2010 6:09:42 PM

^ There's a line or two in their platform that addresses that. They oppose calling it bigotry. lol

6/26/2010 6:11:22 PM

quite frankly those that think that texans that are against gay rights are bigoted for that reason, are just as bigoted using their own logic. Reasoning:

One texan, say his name is Joe, says "gays should be outlawed". He is deemed a bigot by Jerry.

Joe is deemed a bigot because he disagrees with Jerry and thinks that Jerry's beliefs are wrong.

By that same logic Jerry is a bigot because he is doing the same thing with Joe's beliefs.

You have to pick a side. Just because someone takes a side doesn't make them a bigot, it means they have normal reasoning capabilities.

Thoughts?

6/26/2010 6:31:59 PM

Hahaha, oh wow. What part of Texas do you live in? Have ever come across any people like this?

6/26/2010 6:32:24 PM

^^
Sure, if we assume "people who hate gays" is a valid subset of the population. Bigotry usually refers to intolerance toward race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or religion.


[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/26/2010 6:42:45 PM

this is just plain stupid.

6/26/2010 6:46:41 PM

It all must boil down to simple logic. Bigotry is just a word. It at best tries to represent something in reality. The problem here is that the people defining bigots are also the ones defining the word bigotry (IE what bigotry is and what it isn't). Its a conflict of interest. Because some texan opposed to Gay rights may think that anyone who opposes him is a bigot. You can't rule him out because you define bigotry differently because that is plain bigotry!

6/26/2010 7:05:10 PM

If you don't like the laws, leave.

6/26/2010 7:11:19 PM

Some people don't easily have that option.

I also find it incredibly amusing and hypocritical the cognitive bias that conservatives have between, on one hand, being incredibly vocal about the government staying out of people's lives and that personal liberty is paramount, and on the other hand fighting so vehemently to deny a subset of the population basic personal rights that they themselves enjoy.

In other words:

"THA GOVMENT NEEDS TO STAY OUTTA PEOPLES LIVES, EXCEPT MAKE IT SO FAGS CANT GET MURRIED OR HAVE SEX! YEEHAWW!"

I would also find it amusing if, after this law passes, a straight couple is arrested for having anal sex.

6/26/2010 7:18:38 PM

There's a huge part of the "conservative base" that doesn't give a damn if gay people have sex or get married. As you point out, it's not consistent to be anti-government and pro-freedom while being against same sex marriage. Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum, it's not consistent to be pro civil rights, but against economic freedom.

6/26/2010 8:10:07 PM

Quote :

"it's not consistent to be pro civil rights, but against economic freedom."

Well, when economic freedom results in the diminishment of other civil rights, it's not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

6/26/2010 8:17:32 PM

Quote :

"I also find it incredibly amusing and hypocritical the cognitive bias that conservatives have between, on one hand, being incredibly vocal about the government staying out of people's lives and that personal liberty is paramount, and on the other hand fighting so vehemently to deny a subset of the population basic personal rights that they themselves enjoy."

You make a great point and I agree on a lot of issues, IE the BP vs. Government thing going on right now.

But I think that this issue is different because it seems like the GOP is saying that homosexuality is not a basic personal right, therefore they can deem it illegal. So one could argue for or against that, but the GOP isn't being hypocritical here IMO.

6/26/2010 8:18:10 PM

lol

what American is against “economic freedom”?

6/26/2010 9:01:23 PM

But no one tops old Uncle joe...man he was a pragmatist...gotta love it...

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use."

6/26/2010 9:19:58 PM

Republicans are all too often in favor making government small enough to fit into your own private bedroom.

6/26/2010 9:49:10 PM

^
..and Democrats want the gov't to fit into your wallet.

Both parties want to use gov't to intrude into our lives. Republicans want to control our social behaviors and Democrats want to control our economic behaviors.

6/26/2010 10:21:14 PM

One other thing just stuck out at me, as I was re-reading my OP (and cursing inwardly at a couple of grammatical errors):

Quote :

"We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist of and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman."

Are they saying that transgender people wouldn't be allowed to get married at all, even in a heterosexual relationship?

6/26/2010 10:29:31 PM

a transgender man->woman could marry a woman according to that law. and vice versa.

6/26/2010 10:36:16 PM

List of possible Libertarian Paradise States:
---------------------------------------------
Alaska
Texas
New Hampshire?
North Carolina?
Vermont?
South Dakota?
California?

:sigh:

[Edited on June 26, 2010 at 11:06 PM. Reason : ]

6/26/2010 11:04:33 PM

There was never a real possibility of Texas being a libertarian paradise. With a secessionist idiot for a governor, you can imagine why.

6/26/2010 11:11:40 PM

Looking over the Libertarian national website, it looks like Pennsylvania has the most Libertarian elected officials, and ranks pretty highly on number of candidates running.

I saw that there weren't many libertarian mayors in the US, but two of them were in PA (the only state w/ more than 1), in towns very nearby to each other. Other townships/municipalities nearby with Libertarian officials included Seven Fields, Strattanville, Licking, and a few in Sugarcreek, and another in Oil City which are all in like a 40 mile radius. The two towns with Libertarian mayors in this area were Emlenton & Polk. So that roughly triangle sized area of PA north of Pittsburgh seems to be full of Libertarians if you are looking to surround yourself in a Libertarian paradise.

6/27/2010 12:47:34 AM

Too many poor people and leftists in Philly, too many union honks in Pittsburgh, and too many insane amish in other parts. You can get localized Libertarian government, but a state with the population size of PA will never be a Libertarian utopia.

I still think the idea of a mass Libertarian immigration to somewhere like NH or VT would yield interesting results, but in many ways it also upsets me because then it would be just another case of the tyranny of the masses. I'd like to see it happen on its own, over time as the populace sees the benefits in one area and it slowly spreads.

6/27/2010 1:00:10 AM

HRC is calling on Michael Steele to repudiate the Texas GOP platform, plus an online petition:

https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=885&autologin=true&utm_source=Convio&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Link-2&utm_campaign=Texas-GOP-says-gays-shouldnt-have-custody-of-children&utm_content=tafc&JServSessionIdr004=lwyiluuko4.app306a

6/27/2010 9:59:23 AM

It’s so nice when they solidify their idiocy in writing for everyone.

At least in Texas, no one can really deny that Republicans are idiots.

[Edited on June 27, 2010 at 10:45 AM. Reason : ]

6/27/2010 10:44:30 AM

This is bad and I disagree with it and all, but I'm having a hard time focusing on that. My mind is occupied with the question of why a reasonably intelligent homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) would so much as visit Texas, let alone live there.

6/27/2010 12:30:41 PM

^lots of jobs

6/27/2010 12:49:38 PM

^^ I moved here. I have an excellent job in a boring-ass community.

6/27/2010 1:17:49 PM

Quote :

"With the public opinion becoming more and more tolerant of gays, they're only hurting themselves."

Yep. Even aside from the fact that they are being ridiculous and repugnant, they hurting their own cause by grossly overplaying their hand.

Quote :

"lol what American is against “economic freedom”?"

Umm, are you shitting me?

Quote :

"My mind is occupied with the question of why a reasonably intelligent homosexual (or heterosexual, for that matter) would so much as visit Texas, let alone live there."

There are at least a few things there that are absolutely worth visiting.

6/27/2010 2:44:44 PM

Quote :

"Umm, are you shitting me? "

no

6/27/2010 2:49:30 PM

Quote :

"There's a huge part of the "conservative base" that doesn't give a damn if gay people have sex or get married. As you point out, it's not consistent to be anti-government and pro-freedom while being against same sex marriage. Similarly, on the other end of the spectrum, it's not consistent to be pro civil rights, but against economic freedom."

should be reposted.

6/27/2010 3:00:09 PM

^^ I'd love to hear you defend that statement.

6/27/2010 3:58:43 PM

Well, what's your definition of economic freedom?

6/27/2010 4:09:32 PM

Quote :

"AND make it illegal for someone to marry two gay people"

not at all true. it says it would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for a civil official to marry them. As in, not just any person.

6/27/2010 8:23:43 PM

Economic freedom doesn't mean Laissez's Faire economics.

6/27/2010 8:39:07 PM

Houston is the largest city in the US to have an openly gay mayor. As recent polling suggests more Americans are now okay with teh gay than not, and Texas is in some ways a part of the US. I wouldn't have a problem moving to Texas if the pay was right, and the air conditioning was good.

6/27/2010 10:23:04 PM

bttt. Montana's GOP is showing its homophobia as well:

http://www.mtgop.org/platform.aspx

Quote :

"Homosexual Acts We support the clear will of the people of Montana expressed by legislation to keep homosexual acts illegal."

No ambiguity there. If you perform a "homosexual act," you should be a criminal. A one-line blanket plank in their platform is just as bad as Texas. I'd love to see them define "homosexual acts."

6/29/2010 9:30:31 PM

I just visited Texas recently without too much trouble. In San Antonio, self-described crack addict who was showing me to the Catholic Worker house perceived my queerness. He told me how he had been with men for crack and thus had negative feelings toward the practice, but recognized how it was completely different absent of such economic coercion. Someone did threaten to bash me with a rock but I don't believe that had anything to do with sexuality.

6/29/2010 9:56:19 PM

^ I live in Texas, and I semi-regularly come across anti-homosexual behavior and actions here. Besides that, I really have no idea what the rest of your post was about.

6/30/2010 9:35:00 AM

Religion is fine! People are free to believe what they want and don't affect anyone else with their crazy beliefs.

6/30/2010 10:40:03 AM

Quote :

"I'd love to see them define "homosexual acts.""

If being a UNC fan is on that list, I will support this bill.

6/30/2010 11:09:01 AM

^^ Secular individuals and groups also affect others with their crazy beliefs.

6/30/2010 11:13:07 AM

Keep your government and religion out of my bedroom, plz.

6/30/2010 11:21:12 AM

But it is not their secularity that is the source of their beliefs. And then there's the difference of scale to consider.

Finally, [citation needed]. Please provide an example of what can be generally considered crazy policy suggested by a group specifically because of their secularity.

6/30/2010 11:21:15 AM

I'd point out instances of religious persecution, but I doubt you would view that as bad.

Hypothetical: If Texan GOPers suddenly renounced religion, do you really think their views on homosexuality would change?

6/30/2010 11:57:07 AM

No, I'm suggesting if it were never there in the first place, they wouldn't care where people put their cocks.

I'm suggesting it will be so in an indeterminate time in the future when the usefulness of religion wears off.

V Hell, religion *should* also be insufficient reason to criminalize it, but that's what we get for having a Christian majority of voters. For anyone else watching, this is one of the fundamental problems of having belief systems that have basis in fantasy affecting others.

[Edited on June 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2010 12:19:37 PM

^^ Yes, because religion is the source of most of their platform planks. Take that away, and the basis for their opposition to homosexuality boils down to nothing more than personal preference, which is an insufficient reason to criminalize it.

6/30/2010 12:23:20 PM